49x37mm or 54x40.5 image sensor size is the optimum?

[Theodoros]

Just thinking loud... but the 20% reduction in resolution for having a sensor of 37x49mm than a respective 54x40.4 "MF-FF" one, may have more advantages than drawbacks...

1. 24mm lenses give an ultra wide AOV that is "just perfect"... wider than that seems to be "too wide"...
2. Only the far edges & corners of the sensor are cropped, which leads the sensor to use the optimum size of the image circle... This should lead for all lenses to maximize their performance even if they are used wide open, thus the system becomes faster.
3. There is a massive increase of lens choices when the MFDB is used with a tech/view camera since many MF lenses would provide an image circle that would allow a considerable latitude to be used for movements...
4. The back should be considerably cheaper but the user may save much more by sharing his MF lenses on his view camera too, thus avoiding the investment for more lenses altogether.
5. Lens distortion & vignetting is eliminated

Now... Where is that 37X49 Cmos multishot MFDB with 6μm size pixels, no microlenses, great LV and 50mp? 

[Paul2660]

Just thinking loud... but the 20% reduction in resolution for having a sensor of 37x49mm than a respective 54x40.4 "MF-FF" one, may have more advantages than drawbacks...

1. 24mm lenses give an ultra wide AOV that is "just perfect"... wider than that seems to be "too wide"...
2. Only the far edges & corners of the sensor are cropped, which leads the sensor to use the optimum size of the image circle... This should lead for all lenses to maximize their performance even if they are used wide open, thus the system becomes faster.
3. There is a massive increase of lens choices when the MFDB is used with a tech/view camera since many MF lenses would provide an image circle that would allow a considerable latitude to be used for movements...
4. The back should be considerably cheaper but the user may save much more by sharing his MF lenses on his view camera too, thus avoiding the investment for more lenses altogether.
5. Lens distortion & vignetting is eliminated

Now... Where is that 37X49 Cmos multishot MFDB with 6μm size pixels, no microlenses, great LV and 50mp? 

All good points, but as a shooter who mainly uses wides, I still prefer the larger size.  I tried the 50MP cropped last year, loved the results, but the difference in framing a shot out to be the same was 12 feet or more.  In my work, many times, you can't move back 12 feet. 

If I was shooting out west in the grand open environment, the cropped sensor would be an advantage for sure.  And as you point out, the lenses available are many. 

I had hoped that a future would include both the 100MP chip and possibly a 60MP or 75MP sized chip, both in the 54 x 40 size, but it seems that will not happen. 

After using a P45+ for almost 4 years, that sensor size was perfect, 1:1, still a crop but not enough to matter in most situations. 

Paul C

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Your thinking is reasonable, in fact, these are the same reasons Hasselblad decided to go with slightly cropped sensors back around 2005.

But, I don't think there are a lot of sensors around and I would guess that it is a seller's market. Would Sony develop a 1.1x crop sensor, it would cost a lot of money. Developing a sensor with new pixel design would be much more expensive.

So, like it or not, I am pretty sure that future MFD cameras will be built around the sensors being available.

Best regards
Erik

Just thinking loud... but the 20% reduction in resolution for having a sensor of 37x49mm than a respective 54x40.4 "MF-FF" one, may have more advantages than drawbacks...

1. 24mm lenses give an ultra wide AOV that is "just perfect"... wider than that seems to be "too wide"...
2. Only the far edges & corners of the sensor are cropped, which leads the sensor to use the optimum size of the image circle... This should lead for all lenses to maximize their performance even if they are used wide open, thus the system becomes faster.
3. There is a massive increase of lens choices when the MFDB is used with a tech/view camera since many MF lenses would provide an image circle that would allow a considerable latitude to be used for movements...
4. The back should be considerably cheaper but the user may save much more by sharing his MF lenses on his view camera too, thus avoiding the investment for more lenses altogether.
5. Lens distortion & vignetting is eliminated

Now... Where is that 37X49 Cmos multishot MFDB with 6μm size pixels, no microlenses, great LV and 50mp? 

[Theodoros]

Hi,

Your thinking is reasonable, in fact, these are the same reasons Hasselblad decided to go with slightly cropped sensors back around 2005.

But, I don't think there are a lot of sensors around and I would guess that it is a seller's market. Would Sony develop a 1.1x crop sensor, it would cost a lot of money. Developing a sensor with new pixel design would be much more expensive.

So, like it or not, I am pretty sure that future MFD cameras will be built around the sensors being available.

Best regards
Erik

I'm not so sure about that... especially after Mr. Oosting's interview and the concerns he expressed on using Sony's 100mp sensor, I think it may be possible that they'll have an exclusive to them sensor of intermediate size before they'll release a "top" model using Sony's FF sensor.... and then, don't forget about Sinar... they haven't released anything with Cmos yet, but Leica does have an exclusive to them Cmos sensor that is of close size....

[torger]

49x37 is certainly a sweetspot for the Schneider Digitar lenses I'm using, and not strange as that was the "high end size" for a while which Hasselblad designed for, and I think the 90mm image circles of the tech wides was aimed at that as well. However MFD sensor size has been a moving target, ten years ago I guess few could predict that it would be 44x33 and 54x41 would be the standard sizes, but now it is and Phase One couldn't be happier, while Hasselblad probably less so having aimed more for 49x37mm. Fortunately only a few lenses in their line is hurt by this.

Of course I'd love a re-introduction of the 49x37mm size without microlenses (and with light shields) but I think it's 100% wishful thinking.

First of all I think it would be too expensive to customize Sony's sensor like that so Hasselblad couldn't do it even if they wanted to. But perhaps more importantly I think we'll see less of satisfying the need of niches and more effort into making cameras attractive to the more common focus groups. I don't think Hasselblad, or Phase One, see it as a big loss that their newest backs won't work that well with tech wide movements. Hasselblad talks a fair bit about the CFV back potential in the legacy V system, but they don't push it at all for use with tech cameras, and for longer lenses (product photo etc) it does works well.

[torger]

I'm not so sure about that... especially after Mr. Oosting's interview and the concerns he expressed on using Sony's 100mp sensor, I think it may be possible that they'll have an exclusive to them sensor of intermediate size before they'll release a "top" model using Sony's FF sensor.... and then, don't forget about Sinar... they haven't released anything with Cmos yet, but Leica does have an exclusive to them Cmos sensor that is of close size....

I interpret the concerns with the 100MP sensor is related to their aging platform which needs replacement so they can show some decent live view etc. "No hurry and making it right" is about fixing their platform so their product doesn't look as sluggish in comparison to Phase One as the current series does. Something is probably going to happen with the drone stuff, the "lot's of products" could be related to that rather than the H system. We'll see.

As far as I know the only product Sinar has released after the Leica takeover is a Leica S adapter for their view cameras. I hope something more interesting will appear, but I won't hold my breath.

[dchew]

It seems to me if these things really were advantages, everyone with a 54x40 sensor would be cropping all their images to 37x49. Well, except for maybe the first part of #4.

Dave

Just thinking loud... but the 20% reduction in resolution for having a sensor of 37x49mm than a respective 54x40.4 "MF-FF" one, may have more advantages than drawbacks...

1. 24mm lenses give an ultra wide AOV that is "just perfect"... wider than that seems to be "too wide"...
2. Only the far edges & corners of the sensor are cropped, which leads the sensor to use the optimum size of the image circle... This should lead for all lenses to maximize their performance even if they are used wide open, thus the system becomes faster.
3. There is a massive increase of lens choices when the MFDB is used with a tech/view camera since many MF lenses would provide an image circle that would allow a considerable latitude to be used for movements...
4. The back should be considerably cheaper but the user may save much more by sharing his MF lenses on his view camera too, thus avoiding the investment for more lenses altogether.
5. Lens distortion & vignetting is eliminated

Now... Where is that 37X49 Cmos multishot MFDB with 6μm size pixels, no microlenses, great LV and 50mp? 

[ErikKaffehr]

Well,

When asked about if they are going to do something with 100 MP, he says "Well, Absolutely" but than he is elaborating, saying that the electronics needs to be updated. He also refers to the 200MP MS back.

The reason I don't think Sony designs more sensors is expense, you seem to think they develop sensors for fun, but they certainly do it for profits. Making two sizes of sensors (crop and full frame) make a lot of sense.

The 100 MP back fills two needs, 1.3X crop sensor and full frame. The 100 MP sensor also gives maximum resolution. It would be nice of course for Phase One and Hasselblad to have an intermediate sensor for marketing reasons. But I don't think they want to pay Sony for development.

Best regards
Erik

I'm not so sure about that... especially after Mr. Oosting's interview and the concerns he expressed on using Sony's 100mp sensor, I think it may be possible that they'll have an exclusive to them sensor of intermediate size before they'll release a "top" model using Sony's FF sensor.... and then, don't forget about Sinar... they haven't released anything with Cmos yet, but Leica does have an exclusive to them Cmos sensor that is of close size....

[Theodoros]

I interpret the concerns with the 100MP sensor is related to their aging platform which needs replacement so they can show some decent live view etc. "No hurry and making it right" is about fixing their platform so their product doesn't look as sluggish in comparison to Phase One as the current series does. Something is probably going to happen with the drone stuff, the "lot's of products" could be related to that rather than the H system. We'll see.

As far as I know the only product Sinar has released after the Leica takeover is a Leica S adapter for their view cameras. I hope something more interesting will appear, but I won't hold my breath.

Anders, what LV has to do with the platform? ...and you call H5X "aging"?  ...I find it as modern as any! 

[minicoop1985]

I say the bigger the sensor, the better, particularly for macro and wides, which is what I use it for.

[ErikKaffehr]

Everything,

You need to read out the data fast enough and process it fast enough for real time display. It is mostly about processing power, but also about cooling. My understanding is that LV is much better on the IQ series than on Hasselblad at this time.

Best regards
Erik

Anders, what LV has to do with the platform? ...and you call H5X "aging"?  ...I find it as modern as any! 

[torger]

Anders, what LV has to do with the platform? ...and you call H5X "aging"?  ...I find it as modern as any! 

Like Erik said, what I mean is that the "computer" inside their digital backs is slow compared to the competition, and they use older and lower resolution screens. Although I'm not a particular fan of touch screens myself I think that's the future, even Canon (which held it back for long in their high end models) has it in their top model, and of course Phase One has had it since the IQ series.

When you put a H5D-50c side by side with a IQ250 and compare live view and other features you'll notice that the Hasselblad is sluggish in comparison. Probably this platform doesn't have the processing power to do proper video recording either which nowadays is becoming an expected "standard feature".

Sure their current cameras has good enough live view for me etc, but it's a competitive landscape with demanding customers.

If they modernize their platform so the interactive feel is more like an upscaled 135 camera (like the Pentax), and combine that with a little bit lower pricing they have a winning concept I think. CMOS is revolutionary in the sense that it makes the camera behave like any other camera so you can sell to anyone that wants "bigger and better".

In the CCD times there were so many limitations (long exposure, live view, ISO, video) that the cameras couldn't be as widely popular as they have the potential to become now. In a way CMOS has opened up to reach out to the much larger enthusiast market, in if I was in charge at Hasselblad I would aim the strategy to reach into that market, rather than spending huge amounts of money into producing a custom sensor to support traditional niche markets like view cameras. Yes I personally think it's sad and boring that cameras are about to converge into being more similar, but if Hassy wants to make money I think that's the way to go.

[Theodoros]

As you say, LV with Hasselblad is more than enough for the user to take as much advantage out of its use as with any other system... If P1's is even better, it won't improve LV accuracy a bit, so not an issue for one to pay more than double as to improve on  already excellent focusing accuracy. Heck, one can focus dead accurate using my 12 years old Sinarback 54H  tethered LV function.... especially if he uses a camera platform that is compatible with Sinar's LC shutter (like the Fuji GX-680 or Hassy 503 are...) which would lead to far better LV quality than one would ever need.

Never the less, this discussion isn't to compare P1's vs. Hassy-H LV systems which are both better than one needs... but rather to discuss if given the circumstances, the uses and the availability of UWA lenses, one would be better of with a 37X49 sensor than a FF 54x40,5 one... I think we all agree that if such a sensor will be available, it will have to be an exclusive to the maker sensor as Sony seems to ignore the size. Thus, I don't see other than Hasselblad or Sinar coming up with an intermediate size sensor as it is traditionally used in MS captures (it seems that the mechanism to move the sensor needs some tolerance that prohibits the use of a FF sensor)...

 

[torger]

Yes there are some good arguments for re-introducing that size, and I hope you're right. I just think that it's associated with too high a cost to make it happen, and that their R&D money is better spent on other things.

To make a new sensor size they would have to sell quite a bit of that size. Otherwise it would be cheaper to just get the full-frame sensor and mask a few mm and sell it as 49x37mm.

Also remember that they discontinued all the backs with the 49x37mm size "prematurely", the sensor is still available on the market so they could still make those backs if they had been truly interested in providing that size, and interested in providing great tech cam compatibility. Obviously that is not a priority.

The H5D-60 has an automatic 49x37mm crop mode when put on a lens designed for that size. Why not satisfy with that? With 100 megapixels you still have 80 megapixels left in the crop mode. For a separate 49x37mm size to make sense it must be substantially cheaper, but considering that it will be sold in lower volumes I think it's more likely that it will actually be more expensive.

The key issue is that it's too expensive to make custom sizes, especially if you add to that custom features like removing microlenses and introducing light shields. In the CCD days the sensors used in the MF cameras were used in all sorts of scientific applications too. I'm not sure this will be the case with CMOS, I don't think so. So the cameras sold need to carry the full extra R&D cost for that sensor.

[Theodoros]

Yes there are some good arguments for re-introducing that size, and I hope you're right. I just think that it's associated with too high a cost to make it happen, and that their R&D money is better spent on other things.

To make a new sensor size they would have to sell quite a bit of that size. Otherwise it would be cheaper to just get the full-frame sensor and mask a few mm and sell it as 49x37mm.

Also remember that they discontinued all the backs with the 49x37mm size "prematurely", the sensor is still available on the market so they could still make those backs if they had been truly interested in providing that size, and interested in providing great tech cam compatibility. Obviously that is not a priority.

The H5D-60 has an automatic 49x37mm crop mode when put on a lens designed for that size. Why not satisfy with that? With 100 megapixels you still have 80 megapixels left in the crop mode. For a separate 49x37mm size to make sense it must be substantially cheaper, but considering that it will be sold in lower volumes I think it's more likely that it will actually be more expensive.

The key issue is that it's too expensive to make custom sizes, especially if you add to that custom features like removing microlenses and introducing light shields. In the CCD days the sensors used in the MF cameras were used in all sorts of scientific applications too. I'm not sure this will be the case with CMOS, I don't think so. So the cameras sold need to carry the full extra R&D cost for that sensor.

Cost should be closer to 44x33 than to 54x40.4 Anders... Lets not forget than during the CCD days the Kodak 39mp sensor was offered in 33x44 31mp version too (although modified with microlenses and higher sensitivity) and price difference between the backs was only proportional... That said, it shouldn't be difficult for Leica to have a second version of their 45x30 37.5mp sensor as to be used on the Sinarbacks... It seems that in Sinar they never used a 54x40 sensor because theis cameras and lenses designed for the (slightly) smaller size... (the fact that they use the Dalsa 60mp chip but cropped down to 36x48 for 48mp suggests that the above may be true)... Also as you said, Hasselblad optimized the system for 37x49 size and their top backs (the MS ones) where of that size.

I think that the current 50ms and 200ms Cmos backs are only a temporary choice since they decided to go Cmos, it won't surprise me at all if in Hasselblad they have an exclusive to them Cmos sensor of 37x49 coming soon... They definitely would like to avoid using the 54X40.5 sensor for MS for three reasons: 1. The size might not be compatible with the mechanism needed for MS, 2. The lenses are optimized for 37X49, 3. Many pros use the back on a view camera as to have MS with product photography or architecture and Sony's 100mp sensor seems not to be the optimum for use with movements.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would also suggest that it is a good idea to do cropping in camera for lenses that cover less than full 645, but that crop should be indicated in the viewfinder.

I would be much surprised if Sony made a 49x37 sensor. Just cannot see it makes any sense, especially not if it need a new basic design.

On the other hand, I would not be to much surprised if Sony came out with sensors more tolerant of large beam angle lens designs as it would also do their mirror less designs a service.

Regarding microlenses, I would imagine that those are just a step in manufacturing, so I guess it would possible to make a sensor without them.

Best regards
Erik

Yes there are some good arguments for re-introducing that size, and I hope you're right. I just think that it's associated with too high a cost to make it happen, and that their R&D money is better spent on other things.

To make a new sensor size they would have to sell quite a bit of that size. Otherwise it would be cheaper to just get the full-frame sensor and mask a few mm and sell it as 49x37mm.

Also remember that they discontinued all the backs with the 49x37mm size "prematurely", the sensor is still available on the market so they could still make those backs if they had been truly interested in providing that size, and interested in providing great tech cam compatibility. Obviously that is not a priority.

The H5D-60 has an automatic 49x37mm crop mode when put on a lens designed for that size. Why not satisfy with that? With 100 megapixels you still have 80 megapixels left in the crop mode. For a separate 49x37mm size to make sense it must be substantially cheaper, but considering that it will be sold in lower volumes I think it's more likely that it will actually be more expensive.

The key issue is that it's too expensive to make custom sizes, especially if you add to that custom features like removing microlenses and introducing light shields. In the CCD days the sensors used in the MF cameras were used in all sorts of scientific applications too. I'm not sure this will be the case with CMOS, I don't think so. So the cameras sold need to carry the full extra R&D cost for that sensor.

[Theodoros]

I would be much surprised if Sony made a 49x37 sensor.

Me too.... but, what Sony has to do with anything?  Why you keep mentioning Sony all the time? Sinar already has access to an exclusive made for them sensor (through Leica) and Hasselblad may be presenting an exclusive to them sensor too... Exclusive to a maker sensor can't be Sony...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

- Phase One uses Sony
- Hasselbad uses Sony
- Leaf uses Sony
- Leica uses it's own sensor

Sony has two sensors 1.3X crop at 50 MP and full frame 100MP

Leica has a 30x35 mm sensor at 37.5 MP which Sinar does not use.

Leica sensors are lagging Sony sensors in usable DR, see attachments.

Just to make a small point, there is absolutely no information AFAIK about Leica making a larger sensor and would you have any such information than it would certainly be under NDA.

Best regards
Erik

Me too.... but, what Sony has to do with anything?  Why you keep mentioning Sony all the time? Sinar already has access to an exclusive made for them sensor (through Leica) and Hasselblad may be presenting an exclusive to them sensor too... Exclusive to a maker sensor can't be Sony...

[Theodoros]

Hi,

- Phase One uses Sony
- Hasselbad uses Sony
- Leaf uses Sony
- Leica uses it's own sensor

And what is stopping P1/Leaf or Hassy  to use exclusive to them if they can?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Sorry, English is not my native language, can you explain the question?

Best regards
Erik

And what is stopping P1/Leaf or Hassy  to use exclusive to them if they can?